Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: Humanity must [put an] end the cycle of violence and revenge and achieve reconciliation. Sure now in the whole world in thousand places there are wars. And it is all about politics. Wars and politics: You can put an equal’s sight between them. It’s a crazy problem because one government has and wants to have more power than another. With war they put under pressure nations, cities, countries. These are horrible things. It’s horrible because it is insane and crazy that people do it. In my country people have a war, may be not always using weapons like guns, but also with guns like the war in Chechnya because of its autonomy. But we have also economical wars, which became political wars too. We must think about it, and I think it is a possibility for all humanity to raise its voices against war. A lot of people do this. But more people should do it because nobody wants to have a war. It is a very painful subject for me. When I see, or realise, how many people die every minute. In this very moment while we are sitting here, thousands of people, children are dying from explosions or could be killed some other way. we have to stop it.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: I do not know exactly the connection between politics and violence. Generally, I think that politics implies always violence like the force, the dominance and the government repression. We can not imagine authority without dominance and force. However, violence can change to be politics, so the problem is when politics implies violence.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: The connection between politics and violence. I come from Colombia, a country, that is involved into an undeclared civil war for 40 years; a country that fell victim to a process of political, moral and economic degradation of enormous extent; a country where political institutions have no credibility any more despite the fact that we have a government declaring rights, declaring democratic security which is maintained through an armed peace. Evidently we don´t have stability nor authentic democracy. If we would, for example, talk about democratic peace in my country, it would have a different meaning. In order to eliminate the causes of violence, the causes itself should be attacked and not the consequences. In other words: security, interdict, pressure. In a society the reasons of violent acts should be attacked. Violence is undoubtedly linked to hunger, lack of education, lack of opportunities, frustration. The consequense is: politics and violence become synonymous.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: I don’t know what the connection is. I just know that there is one. It would seem to me that the government requires an agency of coercion and violence as an instrument of its purpose. I also know that violence, institutionalized violence, is an instrument of economic foreign policy. Most of the violence in the world is perpetrated around the subjugation of a people in order to have access to resources. That’s what government does. It’s quite a bizarre idea that we as a people, we as a civilization requires the agency of aggression in order to sustain our purpose in the world. That we need to govern ourselves with an element of aggression. So, I think politics coops violence as an intrinsic part of the way in which we do democratic – how our democracies are defined. But I also think violence is endemic to us as a species. Our memories are imbued and saturated with violence. Each of us bring our own particular experience, our own memories, that which we can remember, from South Africa, to China, we each have a very specific experience of how government, those agencies of the army and the police, and all those ghost-like secret instruments go around seeking ways in which to subordinate, inculcate fear, and of course, on a more macro scale, to export its own notion of aggression.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Yan, I want to say yes but at the same time tell you that I do not know. When I look at the world of politics and the violence, it seems like they’ve been going hand in hand for ages upon ages upon ages. And how we’ve been able to allow that to be it is so difficult to answer. You realize that when you look at the whole world and the politics of it you realize that the greatest industry for this politics is the warfare. I come from the land where has never been any war. So I do not know anything about war but I do know the suffering you people have experienced. Me, I come from a land of peace, where nothing but peace has been in existence, where no one is fearing being shot, where no one is aiming at you, where no one fights for the land. So how do we do that? Why do we do that? Why do we keep making violence through politics? I do not have the answer. I pray that the great peace will come upon us soon. Inevitably the peace will come. And the day when the peace comes I look forward to being standing with you on the top of a hill and raising our hands to the Great One in praise that you and I we have a life to lead for times and times to come. [Kwee-Anuk] in my language, for thank you.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: Politics is a form of violence in our world. Violence is just an extension of politics by other means, to quote [Nadir Ali] and we see more and more politics finding expression in that particular means, the means of using physical force, coercion, in order to carry out political objectives. And really, we see the growth of that method of carrying out politics, because of the suppression of other forms of political expression or organization and mobilization. And the reason for that is that we’ve seen a systematic assault on forms of democratic political expression in our world, and in that circumstance, an extension of the role of violence in organizing politics.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala: Yes, of course. It has a relation with three M’s: muscle, money and mafia. Muscle, money and mafia. Its muscle, money and mafia. It has a connection with muscle, money and mafia.

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: Well, violence is something that is used by people who are in power to maintain their power and to gain more power and that is a strategy. If we think of the recent conflict situation in Lebanon and the indiscriminate bombing and Israel aggression in Lebanon, we saw more than thousand people die. The people who are most affected in this conflict are children who do not ask for this war. And yet, if we look at United States government and the members of the Congress, they voted on a bill to call this Israel’s acts as an act of self-defense. They were playing politics. Even leaders who stood up against war, people such as Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, when the vote came to the Congress, all they could say was “present” instead of voting against a bill which talked about -- which was basically about collective punishment of the people of Lebanon as an act of self-defense. So violence, basically over time, we have seen this being used by people in power to maintain their power; and it is the kind of power which basically is the right of few people to decide for the majority. And the most marginalized -- women, children, elderly -- people are subjected to violence so that those few people can remain in power.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: I think there is a connection between politics and violence and it runs deep into the mentality of the politics in question. When we are in the ego-centric way of being a human being, the politics that comes from that is going to be a politics of violence, and this really comes from all of our great wisdom teachings across the planet. Our great teachers knew that when we are in the ego-centric ego-mental way of thinking and being a human being, we are in a form of life, a way of being that is inherently violent. We violate ourselves, we split ourselves from our own connected integral self, we split from each other, we split across cultures and worlds. And, all of these are splits and polarizations are objectifying ways that violate each other and ourselves. So, it is a politics of violence. So, I think the real question is, what is the mentality and the consciousness that is generating the culture and the political form of that culture to the extent here in the ego-centric mind -- ego-mental mind we are always going to have inherent violence in that kind of culture and consciousness and the politics -- ego-centric politics is a politics of violence? In contrast, the politics that comes from an awakened integral, holistic, connected, consciousness of compassion and care and love is going to be the politics of non-violence, and that is the politics our great teachers have been teaching us and modeling for us. Teachers like Buddha and Krishna and Jesus and Mohammed, Abraham and Moses, all of our great teachers understood that we are interconnected beings and when we live in that moral, compassion and connection that kind of awakened politics is a politics of care and compassion and not the politics of violence.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: I think that the connection between violence and politics changed several times in history. Basically the politicians in the past used violence because violence was glorious. Violence was a way to become famous and popular. The violent persons in history have mostly been admired and popular. But I think today the things have changed. I think that most people in most countries understand that violence is in fact disastrous and that they only use violence when they think that there is no alternative and they use it to defend themselves when they are being attacked. But who is being attacked and when and why? The common citizen doesn't know the answer to this question. The politician often explains it to him and it is true that politicians could have an interest in being violent and to say to their people that it is being attacked and that it has to defend itself. And if he succeeds he is successful and glorious. I think that you basically have to separate violence from politics because the formation and the education of humans help them to decide whether a war is important, necessary and unavoidable and not that it is the politician who tells him that. And then politics will have a different meaning. In Western Europe we have already come so far but not in many other parts of the world. And that has not only something to do with experiences in the past but also with education and culture.

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: We are in a time of war, as we sit here, I wish those that are watching and listening or you could be here at this table, the hope answers these questions. Politics, when we say is something that is so political, what does that mean? When we look at the way that things are implemented and the means behind them, why are we doing these things in the world? Why are we taking advantage or suppressing the people? Why are we expanding the market? Why are we doing the things that we’re doing on the world and we say, ah, it's political; it’s for a reason, there’s an invested interest. Our politicians have an invested interest for their own careers, for their own lives. Often, it is a interest of greed, unfortunately. However, there are politicians and people that are working for the whole and not for themselves. But when you haven’t invested interest and you want to get what you want, and that is in conflict with what you want is in conflict, with what is right? The might versus right. I mean to push you a little more to get what I want. If I want something you have that can benefit me and I want it, and you’re not -- and you're not willing to give it back then usually it results in a way of violence. Violence is the result in the absence of conflict, communication. If you don’t have communication you have a conflict. Violence comes in, and there’s non-violent communication as well as violent communication. We need to resort back to the non-violent ways in politics. We need to make a connection between politics and non-violence more than politics and violence.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: War, as an expression of violence, is being made by politicians who are not taking part of this violence. They promote it, they easily make those decisions, but they are not involved. Meanwhile, innocent people are suffering the consequences of these decisions, while a few are gaining a strategic opportunities. Can be business, can be land, can be territory, can be power. War and violence it's an unethical business. So we need a change, a change of the situation. We need to free the world for more, for the majority.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: One of the most important inventions of the last several thousand years was the concept of the rule of law. And the Greeks gave this to us and the idea of the rule of law is that the people with power will give up the power, submit to the law so that we all can be free. Unfortunately, in the world we live in, nation-states exercising their economic and military power often can use violence for political means whether it’s economic violence or actual physical violence. The concept of pre-emptive war that the Bush administration used as part of it’s rationale for the war in Iraq was an incredible use of violence for not only based on fear but also increasingly for political reasons. So I think that it’s only through international law and recognizing not just the kind of law the Greeks gave us but the law between nations and submitting to international institutions and international law that we can hope to reduce the violence in the world. And as China rises in this century and other countries become more powerful we go more to a multipolar world. Hopefully we’ll get a more stable world and a more peaceful world because it seem like we had during, believe it or not, during the Cold War.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: Politic is by great portion exhibited by violence. This is more visible in dictatorships, however in so called democracy this is done underhand. All this begins from the imagination of the politicians that, whole population and there live depend on the political and national leadership. However, as big part of living people feel resistance towards current state, so the politic starting from Plato to our time uses laws, by which usage of pressure becomes legal.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: So, let’s look at politics and violence. We can define violence as the unlawful exercise of force; not just physical, but also mental and emotional. Really, it arises out of fear and what we call outrage when rage is flowing out of us. So, the connection between politics and violence. I suppose at its root, basically, when we don’t get our fundamental needs and wants met, then often what comes up is this emotion of anger and rage. I believe this is due to an imbalance. Because if you think about it, it goes right back to each person. You could say that war is the result of the collective cries and the collective stress being outpoured by huge numbers of people. I believe it comes from a very limited sense of who we are. Again, when our identity is so caught up with place and caught up with what we have, then when that is threatened violence often ensues. However, extreme action is sometimes justified. It’s like a “when all else fails” kind of strategy. When politics is governed by power and control over people, then it may be justified as a last resort and we see that happening now in many parts of the world. Often when the intelligence of the people falls, that’s often when military interaction rises. Maybe we have to shift our consciousness.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 12:00:00 PM cite

Catherine David:

by Catherine David